Subject: Re: [boost] [local] Review
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-18 22:19:13
On 11/19/2011 6:44 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> As boost is trying to not only push the boundaries of C++ it should also try
>> > to set examples of best C++ practice. I would not consider Macro calls to
>> > interface with a library not good practice.
> I understand. I disagree but I understand your point. I disagree
> because the use of macros in this context saves the user from writing
> verbose boiler-plate code.
> IMO, it is similar to Boost.ScopeExit: Instead of providing the
> SCOPE_EXIT macros we could have said that the user writes the code to
> bind the variables deducing their types and it programs the local
> class with the exit code in the desstructor all of that by hand.
> However, using macros saves the user to write all of that and as I
> user I personally appreciate that. It is true that there is a trade
> off between the readability cost of using macros and the benefit of
> not having to write boiler-plate code. I find that trade off
> acceptable for libraries like Boost.SopeExit or even ForEach and (of
> course ;) ) also for my library so I don't have to write the
> boiler-plate code for the binding and the casting to pass the local
> class as a template parameter.
I share Thomas' sentiment. But IMO, it's really not about using macros.
it's about the syntax. Boost.Foreach looks exactly like a for loop.
The proposed boost locals syntax is arcane. IMO, bottomline: it's
about the design of the DSEL regardless how it is implemented. And,
the syntax proposed is, well, utterly ugly. Anything more complex than
foreach, done using the PP will be a mess. An ugly syntax can be acceptable
IFF there is no other way to do it. In this case (locals), there are
better ways of doing the same thing.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk